Identification of this one was as follows. Body 9 mm, wing 11 mm.
Both Epeorus albertae and Epeorus dulciana should have a conspicuously darkened humeral crossvein in the forewing. This one doesn't.
The foretarsal claws are dissimilar (one sharp, one blunt), which also rules out the Epeorus albertae group.
The dark macula on the forefemora rules out Epeorus deceptivus, which is also supposed to be a little bit smaller.
Both Epeorus grandis and Epeorus permagnus should be much, much larger.
Of the species known to be present in Washington, this leaves only Epeorus longimanus, which is exactly the right size. The key to male spinners in Traver (1935) describes distinctive markings that are visible (although more faintly) in this dun: “Black posterior margins of tergites do not extend laterally to pleural fold, but an oblique black line form this margin cuts across poster-lateral triangle to pleural fold.”

Family-level ID following Merritt, Cummins, & Berg 5th Edition:
1. Thoracic gill remnants absent
2. Arms of mesosternal Y-ridge approach posterior end of furcal pits
3. Submental gill remnants short, obscure, or absent
4. Male. Note that sternum 9 (the long, dark, last segment) appears to be the 8th if you count from the front in the ventral view, because the first segment is not easily visible ventrally.
5. Male abdominal tergum 10 not divided posteriorly; Paraprocts modified as hooks.
6. Male abdominal tergum 10 simple without notches or other prominent processes. This one was tricky, because at first glance it looks like the hooks arise from tergum 10, but in fact they're coming from the paraprocts underneath. There's a medial groove on tergum 10 that could be seen as a "notch" too, but it seems by "notch" the key is referring to a notch in the margin.
7. Abdominal sternum 8 with a conspicuous lobe and sternum 7 without such a lobe.
This leads to Isoperla.
Among Isoperla species known in Washington, most species are ruled out by different shapes of the vesicle (the rounded posterior bump on sternum 8). Isoperla pinta is ruled out by the lack of a region of stout spinules on tergum 9. The remaining options (without knowing how to properly dissect and image the aedeagus) are Isoperla fulva, Isoperla marmorata, Isoperla tilasqua, and Isoperla gravitans, the latter of which is too large. The other three are all at least slim possibilities, but several described characteristics seem to best match Isoperla fulva, which is also mentioned as the most common western Isoperla.

I'm not fully confident in the ID on this one. I couldn't see for sure that there are two equal pads under the tarsal claws instead of three, but it seems that way. The antennae are 4-segmented, although I'm not sure if the last segment counts as a "segment" rather than a style@ or arista sticking off the third segment. It has three ocelli. The key characteristics generally point to Empididae except "Vein R4+5 usually branched." That vein certainly isn't branched in this specimen, but the key does say "usually."

The identification of this specimen is not positive because some of the key characteristics conflict. The uniform amber tint of the wings and the rusty-colored mid-ventral markings on some of the abdominal sternites point to Cinygmula uniformis, but I could not locate the small ventral subapical spines on the penes that are supposed to also diagnose that species (the ones visible in the pictures aren't the ones I'm talking about). If I prioritize that characteristics, this would probably be Cinygmula mimus, but then the wing and sternite shading/markings are wrong.

This extremely tiny fly was puzzling to identify. I collected it from a sparse mating swarm just above the surface of the river. It just doesn't have the "look" I'm used to seeing in Chironomids, but the key characteristics in Merritt, Cummins, & Berg point that way.

-Maxillary palp apparently with 4 segments, antenna with 6
-I can't see any ocelli and wing venation doesn't seem to match Axymyiidae
-Costa definitely ends at or near apex of the wing (pictured)
-Obvious characteristics and wing venation rule out a few other things
-Simuliidae seems like a possibility due to the broad wings, but bugguide says they're supposed to have more antennal segments (eleven, though a different source says some have ten, at least in the Southern Hemisphere).
-Postnotum with median longitudinal groove (pictured) rules out Ceratopogonidae

So my guess is some kind of chironomid from a genus that doesn't have the classic midge look. There are some like that.